The concept of ‘person’ in the depth-psychological corpus occupies a contested ontological and phenomenological terrain, traversing questions of embodiment, selfhood, otherness, and psychic multiplicity. Ricoeur anchors the inquiry philosophically, insisting that ‘person’ names a single referent bearing two irreducible series of predicates—physical and mental—rather than a Cartesian duality; the concept is primitively co-equal with the concept of body, not subordinate to it. From classical Greek psychology, Sullivan traces a complementary distinction: in Homer, the phrenes stand in subordinate yet cooperative relationship to the person, establishing an early template of the self as inhabited by semi-independent psychic entities. Hillman complicates personhood through the acorn/daimon thesis, positing a second, deeper identity—the genius—that may bear a different name from the civil self and that animates character beneath the socially registered person. McGilchrist relocates the person in irreducible first-person knowledge: to know another person is necessarily to know through encounter rather than description. Across clinical voices—Gendlin, Miller, the IFS tradition, grief and trauma theorists—‘person’ functions as the locus of empathic regard, autonomy, and transformation. What unites these diverse approaches is a shared resistance to reductive accounts: the person is neither a bundle of traits, nor a naked ego, nor a social construction, but a locus of embodied, ensouled, relational becoming.